Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 A New Kind of Feminist Science

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jul 18, 2002
Luce Irigaray, the noted French feminist thinker, is probably most famous in American and/or/therefore Internet circles for having been metaphorically raped by noted rightwing nut and "science wars" Kulturkampf fighter Alan SoCal. In his book with Jean Baudrillard, "Intellectual Impostures", SoCal upbraids Irigaray for her suggestion that a feminist mathematics, working in a more intuitive sense with less emphasis on male concepts like "proof", would revolutionise the world and solve hitherto insoluble problems.

Now the noted genius Stephen Wolfram has proved her right.


More stories about Feminism
Misogyny: Why hurt when you can hate?
Women's Magazines - reversing the accomplishments of feminism?
Is it time women covered up at work ?
Sexism. Nature ? or Nurture ?
Women responsible for society's ills
The Genital Offensive
Koleen Brooks Has Got The Right Stuff
The Tyranny of Makeup

More stories by

The Gay Tax
Linux Linux Linux -- Part One -- Trying to Be a Hero
A Declaration of Independence for the Indebted States of America
Kill Yr Idols: Nelson Mandela
Open Letter to a Stripper
Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
Tax the Childless, Double Votes for Parents
Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ
Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me
The Real Darwin Awards
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
'English Style Lovers', with jsm
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Kill Yr Idols - Donald Knuth
Linux Linux Linux Part Two - Crossing the Linux Fault Threshold
Teaching Astrology In Schools
Chip Hell -- the AMD story
We Licke Icke
Slashdot Subscriptions and VA Software -- what's going on?
Wicca and the Insult to Religion
Linux Zealot and Economics 101
We don't pretend here at adequacy to understand the French feminist philosopher and critical theorist Luce Irigaray in any great depth. Since male life expectancy is only 74.5 years in the USA, and what with maintaining this website, keeping up with the newspapers and trying to read some of the classics of Western literature, we frankly doubt that we're ever going to have the spare time to get into her work. Maybe perdida, with the extra five years' life expectancy her gender brings, will give it a crack some time.

Because of our ignorance about what Irigaray actually wrote, we're reduced to getting our information third hand, via people like Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. They wrote a book called "Intellectual Impostures" in order to tell us, at mind-numbing length, that Irigaray and other French critical theorists were Very Bad People and Not Worth Reading. Indeed, so many people are of this opinion, and so many of them are folks (like Richard Dawkins and William Safire) who have turned out to be utter arseholes on every other subject, that I at least among the Adequacy staff had come to the conclusion that if literally the entire inflated-self-esteem-hard-science-equals-hard-dick-know-it-all community hated Irigaray enough to write a whole big book about how stupid she was, there was almost certainly something to be said for her.

What I didn't expect was that one of the greatest mathematical geniuses of the last twenty years would prove this view to be crashingly and resoundingly right.

For those of you with better things to do with your time than keep up with the Science vs Sociology wars, the rap sheet against Irigaray boils down to one specific charge; that she did recklessly or with malice aforethought suggest that there might be some connection between

  1. the way in which classical mechanics concentrates for the most part on the motions of medium-sized rigid objects, and
  2. the fact that most scientists in history have been men, and therefore for the most part obsessed with the motions of a particular kind of object, an object which is often decidedly less rigid and decidedly more medium-sized than its owner would like, but which could charitably be assumed to tend asymptotically toward the Newtonian ideal.
Specifically, the great sin which got Irigaray into the Black Book of Postmodernism was to suggest that mathematics was not as value-independent and Platonic a field of inquiry as one might think. In an attractively adventurous quote, she speculated that things would have been different (specifically, our view of which classes of applied maths problem are easy and which difficult) if women had been in charge of the whole enterprise
The Newtonian break has ushered scientific enterprise into a world where sense perception is worth little, a world which can lead to the annihilation of the very stakes of physics' object: the matter (whatever the predicates) of the universe and of the bodies that constitute it. In this very science, moreover [d'ailleurs], cleavages exist: quantum theory/field theory, mechanics of solids/dynamics of fluids, for example.
Or as American writer Katherine Hayles puts it ...
"The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.
Hard questions

So, to sum it up, male maths is obsessed with hard-ons, while women's maths, if it existed, would be able to solve problems of turbulent flow because women are more interested in it. Not, one might have thought, all that outrageous a piece of speculation about the sociology of mathematicians. But apparently this small mention of our old pal the penis was enough to bring out a long parade of male academics absolutely eager to spell out exactly where Luce Irigaray had gone wrong. So we have ...

  • Irigaray, in sum, does not understand the nature of the physical and mathematical problems posed in fluid mechanics," -- Sokal & Bricmont, Fashionable Nonsense
  • "You do not have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument (the tone of it has become all too familiar), but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem: the Navier-Stokes equations are difficult to solve." -- Richard Dawkins, Nature ."
  • Irigaray's invocations of the sciences concerned may be worse than dodgy" -- John Sturrock, LRB
And so on.

What we are obviously meant to conclude is that there is no sociological reason whatsoever why turbulent flow is generally considered to be an intractable calculation; it has to be intractable, because the only way to model turbulent flow is via the Navier-Stokes partial differential equations, and these have no closed-form solution, so they are intrinsically difficult. Case closed. Irigaray didn't know shit, so let's burn the witch for lying about science. Or is that the end of the story?

OK, we're going to be a bit rude about some scientists here, so sensitive souls should look away ... ....

There is a much easier way to model turbulent flow than trying to solve the Navier-Stokes equations by brute force, and if Sokal, Bricmont, Dawkins and the gang had held themselves to their own intellectual standards and bothered to look up the science before shooting their fucking mouths off, they'd have known about it.

In 1986, Uriel Frisch, Brosl Hasslacher and Yves Pomeau published the paper "Lattice-gas automata for the Navier-Stokes equation" in Physical Review Letters. In this paper, they demonstrated that by modelling a turbulent fluid using the theory of cellular automata as invented by John von Neumann and developed by Stephen Wolfram, one could achieve a step jump in the mathematical tractability of the modelling of turbulent flow. Interestingly, this paper appear some ten years before Sokal and Bricmont published "Impostures Intellectuels", presumably some time after Sokal's knowledge of the field had ossified, but one year after Luce Irigaray set out her views on fluid mechanics in "This Sex Which Is Not One" in 1985.

So what's the big deal? Well, as Stephen Wolfram, the mathematical genius and author of computer program Mathematica, argues in his recent book, "A New Kind Of Science", the theory of cellular automata (the eponymous "new kind of science") is a massively important development in mathematics. By stepping back from the differential equations way of thinking which described classical mechanics so well and allowed us to calculate the trajectories of cannonballs so accurately for so many years, it is possible to use this new method to dissolve all sorts of problems which had previously appeared to be utterly intractable. It gets better. The theory of cellular automata is best illustrated by reference to the famous "Game of Life", in which tiny little cells, which look a lot like ova, propagate themselves by growing, dividing, gestating and increasing in complexity in a way which only someone who was utterly blind or trying to be annoying on purpose could avoid seeing as inordinately analogous to the workings of the female reproductive system.

Cellular automata theory doesn't deal with rigid things which fly around in continuously differentiable trajectories; it deals with things which diffuse outward gradually, then experience sudden unpredictable changes in complexity. The parallels with Irigaray's writings on the feminine as fluid are unarguable:

"continuous, compressible, dilatable, viscous, conductible, diffusable... it enjoys and suffers from a greater sensitivity to pressures... it changes - in volume or in force... it allows itself to be easily traversed by flow by virtue of its conductivity to currents... it mixes with bodies of a like state, sometimes dilutes itself in them in analmost homogenous manner, which makes the distinction between the one and the other problematical: and furthermore that it is already diffuse " in itself ", which disconcerts any attempt at static identification. "
So in other words, Sokal and Bricmont (and later on, their crowd of wannabes), were heaping fun on Irigaray for predicting, one year before the FHP paper, that the problem of fluid mechanics would only be soluble by turning to an area of mathematics which is vastly more suited to the description of female sexuality than male, and being right. We at adequacy think that an apology is probably in order.


Umm.. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 03:42:35 AM PST
You're talking utter nonsense. Cellular automata are a science, based on set rules. They are quite useful for taking a complex equation and breaking it down into a simple matrical method of having a problem solve itself.

Additioanlly, I would like to see a single life simulator that does not use square 'cells', or a single ova that is square or cubicle in shape.

You're not up to speed yet, are you? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by RobotSlave on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 04:02:33 AM PST
If cellular automata are "science based on rules," then perhaps you can tell us what rule, exactly, distiguishes trivial cellular automata from ones that implement Turing machines? You will, of course, break this explanation down with some "simple matrical method," won't you?

While you're at it, would you care to comment on the fact that the core of Wolfram's work is not a "life simulator" that tinkers with things that are "square or cubicle in shape," but rather a series of observations on a one-dimensional space (you can call it the "natural numbers," if you like), and sets of simple rules acting on that space (which, taken together, you could call "algebras," if you were so inclined)?

Better yet, just go away and leave the Big-Thinking stuff to the Smart People, until you've at least reached the point where you have begun to apprehend the desperate bulwarks of your impossibly narrow mind.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Eh? (none / 0) (#7)
by fzr on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 06:07:06 AM PST
Do you mean Universal Turing machines? If not, what on earth are you on about?

Indeed. (none / 0) (#20)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 02:53:09 AM PST
That is exactly what I meant. For genuinely intelligent people, this would have been obvious from context, but it might require clarification for those less sure of themselves.

For you, then, I offer the following reassurance:


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

correction (none / 0) (#23)
by fzr on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 04:15:17 AM PST
Thanks for clearing that up.

For people well versed in the theory of cellular automata this would indeed be obvious from context. I could find any number of "genuinely intelligent" people for whom this would not be obvious.

I also find that being one of "those less sure of themselves" is a great asset - when you stop questioning yourself and think you know it all, your "genuine intelligence" is wasted.

Correction of what? (none / 0) (#25)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 04:47:00 AM PST
So, you would conflate those more sure of their knowledge than most with those too sure of themselves? How droll.

It looks as though you might be even less intelligent than I initially gave you credit for. Certainly your nervous defence, consisting mainly of a redirection of address to a Platonic Ideal of an uninformed public, would suggest as much.

Also telling is the fact that you don't have a damned thing to say about Wolfram's book.

Before you continue your argument, I'd suggest you choose between cloying appeals to the "everyman," and informed discussion of the specific matter at hand.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

fair enough (none / 0) (#29)
by fzr on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 06:21:29 AM PST
I think my nervous defence has something to do with your offensive stance. I'm on the back foot, so to speak, and for that I am forced to give you credit.

I would very much like to discuss Wolfram's book, but have not yet read it and do not wish to repeat the views of others. What are your thoughts? - I'd be interested to hear what you think. Personally I'd be a lot more excited if it presented any results.

Interestingly enough (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 05:02:22 AM PST
I noted in my Masters Thesis on the Austenite Ferrite Transformation in Steels that where previously it had been beneficial to use simple differentials to describe the process, otherwise the calculations couldn't be reasonably computed, (deep breath) it was rapidly reaching the stage where it was practicable to base the calculations on the actions and interactions of individual growing crystals, as computers were getting so fast. So I wrote some software to do so, and it matches the micrographs very well.

Which was nothing to do with feminity, but more to do with the fact that we can do the number of calculations required for this "new, feminine" approach, where previously it would have be deadly dull....

Interestingly enough (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 03:21:39 AM PST
uhhh just trying to remember...
isnt't austenite called the cristaline structure which appears after heating steel beyond 900 C or so?

as far i can remember if you cool steel down very quickly from that temperature the austenite structure is preserved.

just wondering if i'm completly offroad

And that right there is the point. (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 23rd, 2002 at 03:14:57 PM PST
Irigaray and her ilk are guilty of the crime of not seeking specific answers to specific questions. When a hard scientist prepares an experiment, she seeks to answer a solveable question--maybe not immediately solveable, and maybe not one with immediately meaningful results, but one where one can say "I have _an_ answer I can be reasonably sure of." Soft sciences, because of the slippery nature of their subject (us), are not so rigorously beholden to this standard. Does it bias their conclusions? Of course it does.

It has been observed (forgive me for not providing references) that some of the most fascinating problems of chaos physics were known before the advent of the computer. Examples of these are chaotic oscillations of electrical circuits and pendula. At least one observer points to this as "obvious" scientific bias. I would propose an alternative hypothesis, one that is much more testable. I propose that nonlinear dynamics may have been discovered but not appreciated before the 1960's because a thorough analysis of these chaotic systems was impossible. As Anonymous Poster above observes, it takes a great deal of pencil and paper to arrive at meaningful conclusions about three pendula attached one to the other. On the other hand, a single pendulum is not only easy to model and easily testable, but has obvious engineering applications. Why bother with three? Why give yourself a headache? Surely, not simply because you have a penis!

Irigaray and Wolfram are doing a disservice to both hard and soft sciences by envisioning "feminist" mathematics. Physical reality operates irrespective of gender. And so should we all. Irigaray would be much better spending her time ensuring that women are given equal protection, opportunities and freedoms than fighting against self-inflicted snobbery.

Q: (none / 0) (#43)
by nathan on Tue Jul 23rd, 2002 at 03:51:40 PM PST
Have you read any of Wolfram's book? Or even a review of it?

Sit the fuck down, citizen. You're out of your depth here.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I quite agree... (3.00 / 1) (#8)
by fzr on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 06:45:28 AM PST
...but when will she (or anyone else, especially Wolfram) actually solve some interesting problems? So far all I see is some big (and interesting) ideas, not "a new kind of science" (unless of course this means a kind of science where experimental evidence doesn't matter). I must admit I haven't read Wolframs book (I wish I had the time) but from what I hear it is somewhat less than revolutionary.

OK I'll put my cock away now.

New kinds of sciences... (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 06:53:02 AM PST
Are built from big and interesting ideas. Only rarely do the people who come up with the "big and interesting" ideas use them to solve an interesting problem. Those usually come a good deal afterwards, when some snot-nosed brat (that isn't so caught up in the dogmatic rituals of modern science) casually solves a previously unsolvable problem using said ideas.

Absolutely (none / 0) (#10)
by fzr on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 07:01:38 AM PST
But the "big idea" of cellular automata nas been around for some time. It's nothing new to look at the game of life and think "wow, that could be how the way life works!" or "wow, look at such complexity from such a simple rule". What would be new would be actually doing something with it.

Come on, snot-nosed brats of the world, get to it!

This idea has been kept down by The Man. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by elenchos on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 11:48:57 AM PST
The white European male corprate patriarchy has effectively choked off the growth of these powerful new ideas, "for some time", as you say. Though it is evil, the colonizing of the bodies of people of color and of gender has been nothing if not a success, from the exploiter's point of view.

Your challenge is an example of the imperialist's second line of defense, showing how well you have internalized the ruling elite's narrative of "reality". Why don't they go invent something?, you ask. Like the Eiffel Tower, or a Saturn V rocket, or Viagra, perhaps?

Ask instead, why are they not allowed to do so?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

The Ju-Ju man, always the Ju-Ju man. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 03:05:02 PM PST
Let me assure you, my temporarily misguided patriotic citizen, your servants in the Pentagon are working around the atomic clock to bring Wolfram's scienterrrific hubris to fruition. The work is classified now, but it will make a quite a bang when it is announced, I can tell you that much.

Ask instead, why are they not allowed to do so?

The world must be made safe for democracy, first. Although the War on Terror is almost but not quite won, danger lurks in the shadows of your waxing complacency. While you flirt with outrageous leftivist conspiracies of "imperialism," those of us who believe in Freedom as deeply as we do would rather kill the Ju-Ju man than let him live within poking distance of your Christian wife.

great article (1.00 / 1) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 10:47:38 AM PST
This is the best Adequacy article since the Larry Wall one. Keep it up.

Rubbish (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by greenrd on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 01:21:52 PM PST
In an attractively adventurous quote, she speculated that things would have been different (specifically, our view of which classes of applied maths problem are easy and which difficult) if women had been in charge of the whole enterprise

If you actually read the quote you copied, you'd find she argues no such thing in that quote. Perhaps you copied and pasted the wrong bit.

The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

In another words, the problem could not be "solved" because it was not sufficiently well-described. A new formulation was necessary. Well, it was either a case of a new formulation or new equation solving techniques, so this is hardly insightful.

So in other words, Sokal and Bricmont (and later on, their crowd of wannabes), were heaping fun on Irigaray for predicting, one year before the FHP paper, that the problem of fluid mechanics would only be soluble by turning to an area of mathematics which is vastly more suited to the description of female sexuality than male,

I don't believe she did predict exactly this. Do you have a quote for that or are you twisting the facts to suit your troll?

In conclusion, postmodernists should be euthanised, for the benefit of the gene pool.

Umm....what about gender again? (4.00 / 2) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 02:56:55 PM PST
So...what's changed really? Feminist says that men don't understand certain parts of science because of their sexuality, and that women would've done a better job in those areas. However, we know point to solely MEN (esp. Wolfram) in the radical new understanding of these problems?

Cellular Automata may be a radical new way of analyzing nifty new problems, but sense all contributors to this 'New Kind of Science' mentioned in this article are male, it really has no relevance to the initial gender-science hypothesis.

Proofread and repost, please. (1.00 / 2) (#22)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 03:28:22 AM PST
If you are not sufficiently fluent in the English Language to express scientific viewpoints, then please find a willing and able translator to assist you until such time as you are capable of coherent argument in the contemporary lingua franca.

(And if you found yourself barking in a harsh, hateful, and rather desperate facsimile of laughter at that last turn of phrase, then you need not bother responding).

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

It's a trap! (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 04:47:06 AM PST
Posters, beware! This is a trap!

You will be wasting your time posting well-informed opinions to this article. An obnoxious teenager will just delete them in a temper-tantrum.

You have to leave some glaring flaw in your posts for RobotSlave to lazily focus on delivering some cheap rimshot at, rather than rebut your points. If you don't do this, he will delete your message because he prefers the censor's knife to actual debate.

Please, only post rambling messages that fill the editors with a sense of superiority, i.e. "WAHT ARE U TLAKING BOUT. FISICS IS TO MUCH BRANE FOR ME. I == DUM". Anything that's vaguely coherent and critical of the article will be dealt with in the usual spineless manner.

What are you on about? (1.00 / 2) (#27)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 05:00:05 AM PST
Look, go ahead an post whatever you have to say about the matter at hand. This is the inter-worldly web-net's most controversial site, after all.

If your post was deleted, then the only possible explanation is that it violated Adequacy's strict no-trolling policy.

Unlike some sites with less backbone, we delete not only troll-posts, but also postings linking to trolling technology, and posts discussing trolling in a level of detail that might aid or abet trollsters.

Yes, a few innocents will experience minor suffering under this policy, but better that than allow the Plague Troll to be spread by dissidents and terrorists who have decided to take their freedom of speech beyond the point where it infringes on another man's hide.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

On fallacies, and such. (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 05:39:30 AM PST
I have already read a very coherent post discussing this article. I have trouble recalling the exact contents because it has been removed by the editors and I can no longer read it, but I do not recall any such "trolling" taking place in the comment.

If there was such "trolling" in addition to the clear points made there, the editors should have excised what they deemed to be the "trolling" parts and left the remainder of the rebuttal to stand. To brazenly delete or hide the entire message smacks of craven cowardice and an unwillingness to accept criticism.

In addition, I believe this allegation of "trolling" is unfounded, much like falsely accusing someone of being a communist, a Nazi, a terrorist, or being Hitler. Trying to discredit a person's argument by claiming he has been "trolling" is, in effect, a Machiavellian deceit which has a chilling effect on free debate. If the false accusation and unreasonable punishment against one person is allowed to stand, then it might happen to us all. In effect, the terrorists have already won.

It was clearly a troll. (1.00 / 1) (#33)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 05:16:55 PM PST
I will assume the comment you refer to was the one by user "greenrd." It was clearly a troll, and employed at least two particularly abhorrent trolling techniques.

The first, which I have addressed elsewhere, is commonly referred to as "trollspotting."

The second is "The Game of Why," which should be familiar to anyone who has spent time around small children. In the game, the child asks the adult "Why does so-and-so happen?" The adult gives an answer, to which the child replies, "but why?" This continues indefinitely.

The troll employs this technique by adopting the role of the child, and asking "why" or demanding proof over and over again, refusing to accept any reasonable evidence or explanation offered. This is a trolling tactic that user "greenrd" is known to use exhaustively, and the deleted comment was no exception.

I am heartened that you at least understand that trollspotting is a vile form of trolling, and must be kept strictly in check, lest it spiral out of control into some sort of witch-hunt.

What you fail to appreciate is that this is precisely the sort of situation that Adequacy is guarding against when it deletes trollspotting trolls.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Mr RobotSlave, Sir, (none / 0) (#37)
by because it isnt on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 04:18:48 AM PST
good day to you.

I see you have deleted another fine comment of mine which personally addresses you, rather than respond to it.

Perhaps you will share with us your reasons for the deletion. It certainly can't be for "accusing Adequacy of trollspotting", because I did not do that. I accused you, personally, of being a hipocrite and committing that heinous intellectual debasement in this comment, here. You should take responsibility for your own mistakes rather than smearing Adequacy by insisting that your actions are some sort of AQ-mandated "rules" that you must obey. -- because it isn't

Trolling or freedom to defend one's POV? (none / 0) (#30)
by ninel on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 07:43:03 AM PST

While I do agree that, in general, many posts could be easily labelled trolls, I have a suspicion that Anonymous Reader's removed post was not a troll, but I will never find out now, will I?

Circumstantial evidence that supports my suspicion:
1. your arrogant attitude
2. your cheap intent to discredit him/her
3. your attack on form, damn the content

If you also removed AR's reply to your reply, there is something to be said about your concept of fairness (remember that you're both the judge and the attorney).

ninel - just a geek who got banished several times for puting forward a minority POV
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

You don't understand at all. (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by RobotSlave on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 04:54:56 PM PST
There are no trolls at adequacy. This is due to the strict no-trolling policy in place: all trolls are deleted as soon as they appear.

There is a particularly pernicious type of trolling, in which the troll attempts to discredit the views of others by labelling them "trolls." This form of trolling (sometimes called "trollspotting") as with all others, is strictly forbidden at Adequacy.

For example: if you were presently thinking of accusing Adequacy of "trollspotting" in enforcing its no-trolling policy, you would not only be wrong (as the comments are deleted, rather than labelled), you would also, if you were to put such accusations into writing, be trollspotting yourself, and any such comment would consequently be removed.

I assure you, greenrd's (not Anonymous Reader's, incidentally) comment was exactly the sort of troll under discussion.

As to "fairness," you are laboring under a misconception. Adequacy does not decide what is "fair" based on your infantile demands, but rather on a consideration of what will be best for all of its users. Like a parent that does not give in to the child who repeatedly screeches "it's not fair," Adequacy does not give in to readers who stubbornly insist that they have a God-Given Right to troll.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Mission statement (2.00 / 1) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 04:29:02 PM PST
Somehow I can't unify this post with the mission statement of this website.

Eventhough only "homosexuals, geeks, amputees, racial minorities and Canadians" are mentioned and not specifically "women", the group which is being bashed at is the "middle class white male professional".

How can we remain/maintain the white-male patriarchy if even notable websites, such as, start to back these female apologists?

It's perfectly safe to bash, maul and kill ... (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 06:08:04 PM PST
... white males; the common female will just make more. Homosexuals, Canadians and geeks, otoh, are rare examples of irreproducible positive nurturing. It is not prudent to chase away the special people. Once they leave in a huff, they are gone for good, and life will not be worth protecting from terrorists. This is why we are losing the War on Terror. As you can see, before you can question Adequacy's editorial "bias," you have to assemble all the facts, the common as well as the arcane and neglected, and you have to ponder them outside of the box.

It's not magic, it's Adequacy.

damn them insubordinatin' wimminfolk (none / 0) (#31)
by StAnthonysKidnapper on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 03:59:11 PM PST
... white males; the common female will just make more.....


possibly the article is something of an editorial about-face with the intent of somewhat engendering (no pun intended)'s many less than sympathetic readers? I don't know. or maybe the article was selected with the nefarious intent of showing sympathy with "the oppressed" so as to justify the "democratizing" of the world, i.e., to give the War on Terror some ballast. this doesn't seem credible, why would they bother?

in any case it was an unusually sound editorial choice, for I'm not qualified to evaluate the article; I'm not even sure I agree with it. But it's the first thing I've read here that didn't either baffle me, frighten me or make me laugh. It interested me.

Delightful. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by because it isnt on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 04:31:40 AM PST
Please, jsm, inform us about the latest female developments in science. For example, only females believe the rubbish they read in horoscopes so... oh, you've done that. Well, we could still do with an article on how chirality is just molecules wearing make-up, the state of spectral analysis in the range of fuschia and pink, and how instead of labcoats, we'll have labjackets and labminiskirts. -- because it isn't

Penis vs. Vaginal Physics (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by marko on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 05:53:01 AM PST
The large problem here is that penis based physics (rocket science, ballistics, etc) is being attacked by vagina based physics (cell-automata? not sure of the connection).

I liken this to the argument about the nature of light (particle vs. wave).

The point is, that the two kinds of physics augment each other (interference pattern light experiment) and that penis physics' insecurity has led to vagina physics' anger, and yet, maybe the two are intertwined, which is the best way for their namesakes to be.

My 2 cents.

You're one of a kind, but you're not alone.

Waitaminute -- (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by flowers on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 09:33:20 AM PST
There are women scientists? I'm gonna kill my guidance counsellor.
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

SoCal and Baudrillard? (none / 0) (#44)
by johnny ambiguous on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 05:57:21 PM PST
...noted rightwing nut and "science wars" Kulturkampf fighter Alan SoCal. In his book with Jean Baudrillard, "Intellectual Impostures"...

jsm! "SoCal," that's sweet, and then when you team him up with Brother Jean, (for those of you who don't happen to know, and after all why should you, Brother Jean is a central pillar of the evil against which Sokal and Bricmont have set their lances...) aw gee, I laughed and laughed. Thanks so much for this quick dose of mirth in these bleak times.

Yours Johnny

Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to